Rubin v. New York City Board of Education
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-10208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Rubin v. New York City Board of Education, Judge Schofield held Rubin’s reconsideration motion was not properly before the court because an appeal was pending.
Lise Rubin’s pending motion and the district-court proceedings were affected; the order also directed the Clerk to close the motion at Docket No. 288 and barred further substantive district-court filings until the appeal ended or the case was returned.
What happened
In Rubin v. New York City Board of Education, Lise Rubin asked the district court to set aside several earlier orders and a judgment that dismissed her case. She argued that the court had improperly required a specific format and content for an amended complaint and had not properly analyzed her claims.
Rubin also argued that the judgment was issued before she could file a supporting memorandum and that it showed religious discrimination, bias, and legal and factual errors. She relied on federal procedural rules and appeals-court decisions, and identified a retaliation claim under the Rehabilitation Act.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not consider the motion because Rubin had filed a notice of appeal, which placed the relevant matter before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court directed Rubin to file no further substantive papers until the case returned and closed the motion.
The detailed version
- Rubin v. New York City Board of Education · No. 1:20-cv-10208
- Lorna Schofield
- July 31, 2023
Background
Lise Rubin, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the district court to vacate several earlier rulings, including the March 3, 2023 order, the April 12, 2023 judgment, and the June 16, 2023 order. The filing invoked Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 and argued that the earlier rulings contained legal and factual errors.
Rubin challenged the March order’s directions concerning an amended complaint. According to Rubin, the order required a complaint no longer than 25 pages, prohibited exhibits, limited the claims and defendants that could be included, and required her to submit a letter seeking permission to file the amended complaint. Rubin argued that these requirements improperly dictated the complaint’s content and format and imposed a pleading standard below the one required by federal law.
Rubin also argued that the April judgment was issued before she could file a promised memorandum of law. She said the timing interfered with her observance of Passover and asserted that the judgment reflected religious insensitivity, religious discrimination, bias, and partiality. The filing further asserted that her complaint included viable claims, including a retaliation claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and that the court and defendants had not adequately analyzed the claims under the federal pleading rules.
The Court’s Ruling
The order states that the court had dismissed the case and that Rubin had filed a notice of appeal. A notice of appeal transfers the relevant aspects of the case to the Court of Appeals and limits the district court’s authority to act on those matters while the appeal is pending. Relying on that rule, Judge Lorna G. Schofield stated that Rubin’s third motion for reconsideration was not properly before the district court.
The court directed Rubin to file no further substantive papers in the action until the case was returned to the district court. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Rubin and close the motion at Docket No. 288. The order did not decide whether Rubin’s pleading, retaliation claim, or other legal arguments had merit.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.